<div class="__aliyun_email_body_block"><div style="clear:both;">Dear Councilors, </div><div style="clear:both;"><br ></div><div style="clear:both;">Per the <span class="spellcheck_typo">Council's</span> prior discussion on this and the action item from that discussion, please find the attached comments and suggested edits from the RrSG.</div><div style="clear:both;"><br ></div><div style="clear:both;">In addition, please find below further comments and suggested edits from <span class="spellcheck_typo">Jeff</span> Neuman and I would draw your attention to #1 (and #7) and #8 (highlighted in yellow) and suggest these be discussed further as "open items":</div><div style="clear:both;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:.0px .0in .0pt;caret-color:#000000;font-variant-caps:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:.0px;"><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:#000000;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;text-transform:none;text-decoration:none;"> </span></p><ol start="1" type="1" style="margin-bottom:.0in;caret-color:#000000;color:#000000;font-family:Tahoma,Arial;font-size:14.0px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:.0px;text-transform:none;text-decoration:none;margin-top:.0in;"><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin:.0px .0in .0pt;"><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;background-color:#ffff00;">I really don’t agree with changing the term “consensus policies” to “consensus policy recommendations.” I sort of understand from a grammatical perspective what Brian wants to do, but the term “consensus policy recommendations” appear nowhere in our contracts. Only “consensus policies” do. So rather than risk creating a new category of things, I would not accept ICANN’s proposed revision in II.B.</span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin:.0px .0in .0pt;"><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;">I also do not agree with substituting the words “letter and intent” for “consistent with the policy recommendations and the reasoning underlying the policy recommendations.” I don’t mind “intent”, but putting the term “letter” in their means that ICANN must implement everything exactly the way it was written, which although sounds advisable at first, it may be that it was written poorly and rather than implement something that was poorly worded, it can be implemented consistent with the recommendations but not exactly as worded. Adding “letter and intent” limits the ability to do that.</span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin:.0px .0in .0pt;"><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;">In Section II.E a sentence should be added to the end to the effect of: “Although the review process shall be managed by ICANN <span class="spellcheck_typo">org</span>, the results of all reviews shall be approved by the GNSO Council with input from the community.” I do not want the term “manage” to mean that ICANN controls the outcome.</span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin:.0px .0in .0pt;"><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;">Section IIIA, I do not agree with the deletion of the words “and recommending to the ICANN Board” since that exact language is in the Bylaws. The Bylaws state “</span><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;margin:.0px;padding:.0px;border:.0px;outline:.0px;color:#333333;background-color:white;">which shall be responsible for developing and recommending to the Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains and other responsibilities of the </span><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;">GNSO</span><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;margin:.0px;padding:.0px;border:.0px;outline:.0px;color:#333333;background-color:white;"> as set forth in these Bylaws.”</span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin:.0px .0in .0pt;"><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;margin:.0px;padding:.0px;border:.0px;outline:.0px;color:#333333;background-color:white;">The second sentence of IIIA is circular. All it needs to say is what is in the Bylaws: “The </span><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;">GNSO</span><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;margin:.0px;padding:.0px;border:.0px;outline:.0px;color:#333333;background-color:white;"> Council is responsible for managing the policy development process of the </span><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;">GNSO</span><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;margin:.0px;padding:.0px;border:.0px;outline:.0px;color:#333333;background-color:white;">.”</span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin:.0px .0in .0pt;"><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;margin:.0px;padding:.0px;border:.0px;outline:.0px;color:#333333;background-color:white;">The third sentence should go back to the way it was and not use the term “recommendations”. It should state: “Once policies are approved…..” Remember, the GNSO and Board is not only approving the recommendations, but also the rationale behind those recommendations. All of which is embodies in the policies. </span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin:.0px .0in .0pt;"><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;margin:.0px;padding:.0px;border:.0px;outline:.0px;color:#333333;background-color:#ffffff;">All uses of the term “policy recommendations” should revert back to “policies” as stated above.</span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin:.0px .0in .0pt;"><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;margin:.0px;padding:.0px;border:.0px;outline:.0px;color:#333333;background-color:#ffff00;">I do not understand why we are now creating a new position of the “GNSO Council IRT Liaison”. Although the Council “manages” the PDP, it is not necessarily the Councilors that have expertise in the policies. If we want to state that the Council can appoint a Liaison that is one thing, but it should have the ability to appoint a non-Councilor to this position. And it should be noted that the IRT Liaison to the Council should NEVER be a substitute for the participation of experts and stakeholder. It cannot be assumed that just because there is participation by a liaison that that is somehow indicative of being participation by the community.</span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin:.0px .0in .0pt;"><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;">Section III.E – again remove the term “recommendations” everywhere. See comments above on IRT Liaison to the Council. Again we should not mandate that this always be a Councilor. </span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin:.0px .0in .0pt;"><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;">Section III.E should state: “GDD initiates the IRT recruitment process in coordination with Policy staff <u >and the GNSO Council</u> to ensure that its composition…..” This is not only an ICANN <span class="spellcheck_typo">org</span> activity.</span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin:.0px .0in .0pt;"><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;">III.G should be entitled “Other ICANN Supporting Organizations…” The GNSO itself is </span>an SO<span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;"> and this section applies only to the others.</span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin:.0px .0in .0pt;"><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;">III.H> I do not understand the role of the General <span class="spellcheck_typo">Counsel’s</span> office. Their job is NOT to review the policy language. Perhaps they review the implementation language, but not the policy language. And the second part of that should read “and will not create issues under any existing consensus policies or the Registry Agreements and the Registrar Accreditation Agreement <u >except as specifically contemplated by the approved consensus policies.”</u> In other words, a consensus policy may be approved precisely because it is intending to change </span>language<span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;"> in the agreements. </span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin:.0px .0in .0pt;"><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;">III.I. Should state “Contractual Compliance staff is involved in the Implementation lifecycle to ensure that a new Consensus Policy or changes to an existing Consensus Policy <u >which are intended to create binding obligations on the contracted parties</u> are implemented in a manner that creates clear and enforceable obligations……”</span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin:.0px .0in .0pt;"><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;">III. J. I do not understand the role of “Enterprise Risk Management”. Why are they specifically called out? What makes them different than all other groups within the ICANN <span class="spellcheck_typo">org</span>.</span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin:.0px .0in .0pt;"><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;">Section IV.2 should state “In consultation with Policy staff <u >and the GNSO Council</u>, GDD…”</span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin:.0px .0in .0pt;"><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;">The use of the term “Implementation Liaison” in Section V. is now confusing because we are creating a new “IRT Liaison” from the GNSO. </span>Lets<span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;"> create better more distinguishable terms for these roles. This section is confusing because it is talking about the creation of “Issue Reports” but Issue Reports are usually used in <span class="spellcheck_typo">PDPs</span> not implementation of <span class="spellcheck_typo">PDPs</span>. Are we saying that all implementations of <span class="spellcheck_typo">PDPs</span> will have initial and final reports? This is confusing.</span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin:.0px .0in .0pt;"><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;">In Section V again, third and fourth rows, what is meant by “teams’”? Does this mean GDD teams? IRT teams?</span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin:.0px .0in .0pt;"><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;">Section V, under </span>“Plan”<span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;"> chart, recruitment should be done not only in consultation with Policy </span>staff,<span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;"> but also the GNSO Council”.</span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin:.0px .0in .0pt;"><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;">Section V under “Establish Policy Effective Date”, it should state: “GDD, in consultation with the IRT, <u >and in accordance with the applicable agreements, </u>will determine a <u >proposed</u> reasonable date by which contracted parties can implement changes to become compliant with the requirements of a consensus policy.”</span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin:.0px .0in .0pt;"><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;">Section V, under “Implement”, the fifth row should state: “This milestone marks the end of GDD’s implementation work <u >and the IRT.</u>” It should be clear that the IRT is disbanded as of the Effective Date. All future work needs to be started a </span>new<span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;">.</span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin:.0px .0in .0pt;"><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:red;">Under Section VII, there should be a statement to the effect of: “In the event of a conflict between this CPIF and the ICANN Bylaws, GNSO Operating Procedures, the GNSO Manual (collectively the “Governing Documents”), the provisions of the applicable Governing Documents shall control. [NOTE – THESE MAY NOT BE THE RIGHT NAMES AND I MAY NOT HAVE INCLUDED ALL OF THEM. SOMEONE SHOULD REVIEW]. But this is crucial. We cannot have a GDD staff document take precedence over the Governing Documents.</span></li></ol><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:.0px .0in .0pt;caret-color:#000000;font-variant-caps:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:.0px;"><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:#000000;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;text-transform:none;text-decoration:none;"> </span></p><span style="font-family:Tahoma,Arial,STHeiti,SimSun;font-size:14.0px;color:#000000;">Kind regards,</span></div><div style="clear:both;"><span style="font-family:Tahoma,Arial,STHeiti,SimSun;font-size:14.0px;color:#000000;"><br ></span></div><div style="clear:both;"><span style="font-family:Tahoma,Arial,STHeiti,SimSun;font-size:14.0px;color:#000000;">Pam</span></div><blockquote style="margin-right:0;margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;"><div style="clear:both;"><span style="font-family:Tahoma,Arial,STHeiti,SimSun;font-size:14.0px;color:#000000;">------------------------------------------------------------------</span></div><div style="clear:both;"><span style="font-family:Tahoma,Arial,STHeiti,SimSun;font-size:14.0px;color:#000000;">Sender:Brian Aitchison <brian.aitchison@icann.org></span></div><div style="clear:both;"><span style="font-family:Tahoma,Arial,STHeiti,SimSun;font-size:14.0px;color:#000000;">Sent At:2019 Jul. 13 (Sat.) 06:14</span></div><div style="clear:both;"><span style="font-family:Tahoma,Arial,STHeiti,SimSun;font-size:14.0px;color:#000000;">Recipient:council@gnso.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org></span></div><div style="clear:both;"><span style="font-family:Tahoma,Arial,STHeiti,SimSun;font-size:14.0px;color:#000000;">Cc:gnso-secs@icann.org <gnso-secs@icann.org></span></div><div style="clear:both;"><span style="font-family:Tahoma,Arial,STHeiti,SimSun;font-size:14.0px;color:#000000;">Subject:[council] For GNSO Council Consideration: Proposed Amendments to the Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF)</span></div><div style="clear:both;"><span style="font-family:Tahoma,Arial,STHeiti,SimSun;font-size:14.0px;color:#000000;"><br ></span></div><style >!-- @font-face{font-family:Cambria Math;panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}{font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}{}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal{margin:.0in;margin-bottom:.0pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;}a:link, span.MsoHyperlink{mso-style-priority:99;color:#0563c1;text-decoration:underline;}a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed{mso-style-priority:99;color:#954f72;text-decoration:underline;}p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph{mso-style-priority:34;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-right:.0in;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;}span.EmailStyle17{mso-style-type:personal-compose;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:windowtext;letter-spacing:.0pt;}span.apple-converted-space{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}.MsoChpDefault{mso-style-type:export-only;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;}@page WordSection1{size:8.5in 11.0in;margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}div.WordSection1{page:WordSection1;}{mso-list-id:1044253122;mso-list-template-ids:495773224;}ol{margin-bottom:.0in;}ul{margin-bottom:.0in;}--></style><div class="WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:22.0px;"><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black;">Dear GNSO Council,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:22.0px;font-variant-caps:normal;text-align:start;"><span style="font-size:15.0px;color:black;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:22.0px;font-variant-caps:normal;text-align:start;"><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black;">The Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF) represents ICANN <span class="spellcheck_typo">org’s</span> Global Domains <span class="spellcheck_typo">Division’s</span> “roadmap” for implementing community-developed and approved consensus policy recommendations.
Point H of the Framework mandates that ICANN <span class="spellcheck_typo">org</span> “continually review the implementation framework and related materials to encapsulate additional best-practices or to adjust the steps as a result of lessons learned with previous consensus policy projects.”
In accordance with this mandate, please find attached an amended version of the CPIF for your consideration.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:22.0px;font-variant-caps:normal;text-align:start;"><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:22.0px;font-variant-caps:normal;text-align:start;"><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black;">This proposed set of amendments focuses on establishing standardized processes for <b >post-implementation
consensus policy reviews</b> and for <b >amending the CPIF document</b> on an ongoing basis. In addition to a number of minor language
updates, the following sections have been added to or created: </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:22.0px;font-variant-caps:normal;text-align:start;"><span style="font-size:15.0px;color:black;"> </span></p><ol start="1" type="1" style="margin-top:.0in;font-variant-caps:normal;orphans:auto;text-align:start;widows:auto;"><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;margin-top:.0in;margin-bottom:.0px;line-height:24.0px;"><b ><u ><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;">Section V, “Support and Review</span></u></b><u ><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;">”</span></u><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;">: </span><b ><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:red;">Section
expanded</span></b><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:red;"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;">to reference the proposed <b >post-implementation
consensus policy review process</b> added in the </span><b ><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:red;">new</span></b><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:red;"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;">Section
VI</span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;margin-top:.0in;margin-bottom:.0px;line-height:24.0px;"><b ><u ><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;">Section VI, “Post-Implementation Consensus Policy Review Process”</span></u></b><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;">: </span><b ><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:red;">New
section</span></b><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:red;"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;">added to detail proposed steps for carrying out reviews of implemented consensus policies
</span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;margin-top:.0in;margin-bottom:.0px;line-height:24.0px;"><b ><u ><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;">Section VII, “Consensus Policy Implementation Framework Amendment Process”</span></u></b><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;">: </span><b ><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:red;">New
section</span></b><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:red;"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;">added to detail proposed steps for amending the CPIF</span></li></ol><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:22.0px;font-variant-caps:normal;text-align:start;"><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:22.0px;font-variant-caps:normal;text-align:start;"><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black;">Similar to our effort last year to update the framework and “test” the amendment process, minor updates have been left as redlines throughout the document; more substantive changes are
shown as redlines and have “rationale” comments associated with them. The amended version will ultimately be posted to <span class="spellcheck_typo">icann</span>.<span class="spellcheck_typo">org’s</span> implementation page at <a href="https://www.icann.org/policy/implementation" target="_blank"><span style="color:#954f72;">https://www.icann.org/policy/implementation</span></a>.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:22.0px;font-variant-caps:normal;text-align:start;"><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:22.0px;font-variant-caps:normal;text-align:start;"><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black;">Community review of these proposed amendments is essential to ensure that they conform to existing <span class="spellcheck_typo">org</span> and community standards and practices. <b >If
you have input on these proposed amendments, please provide it to this group by <u >
Monday, 9 September</u></b> (feel free to annotate the document directly and/or provide your input in an email).</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:22.0px;font-variant-caps:normal;text-align:start;"><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:22.0px;font-variant-caps:normal;text-align:start;"><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black;">Thank you all for your time in reviewing this important process. Please let me know of any questions.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:22.0px;font-variant-caps:normal;text-align:start;"><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:22.0px;font-variant-caps:normal;text-align:start;"><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black;">Best,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:22.0px;font-variant-caps:normal;text-align:start;"><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black;">Brian Aitchison</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:22.0px;"><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.0px;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black;">-- </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.0px;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black;">Brian Aitchison, <span class="spellcheck_typo">PhD</span>
</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.0px;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;">Lead Researcher</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.0px;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;">Operations and Policy Research</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.0px;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;">Global Domains Division</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.0px;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;">Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.0px;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;">Los Angeles, CA</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.0px;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.0px;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:22.0px;"><span style="font-size:15.0px;color:black;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:15.0px;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;"> </span></p></div></blockquote><div ><br ></div></div>